FACTS:

Enrile Donio was charged with violating the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 for stealing a Honda TMX 155 tricycle and killing its driver, Raul Layug. During a police checkpoint, Donio and his companions were asked to produce the tricycle's registration and official receipt but failed to do so. The police officers discovered a bloodstained mini jungle bolo in the vehicle and arrested the three individuals. Donio was later allowed to leave to retrieve the registration papers but did not return. The remains of Raul Layug were found, and when Donio was apprehended, a police officer asked him why he did not return. The autopsy revealed that Raul Layug died from stab wounds caused by a sharp instrument. Donio denied the accusations and claimed that he was at work during the alleged crime and was coerced into confessing by the police officers who beat and electrocuted him. The Regional Trial Court found Donio guilty of carnapping with homicide.

The case involves the conviction of Enrile U. Donio for the crime of carnapping with homicide. The trial court found Donio guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Donio was also ordered to pay civil indemnity and actual damages to the heirs of the victim. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. Donio appealed to the Supreme Court, questioning the sufficiency of evidence that proved his guilt. The Supreme Court reviewed the records and found no cogent reason to reverse Donio's conviction. The elements of carnapping as defined and penalized under Republic Act No. 6539, as amended, were all proven during the trial. The tricycle involved in the case was confirmed to belong to the victim through a Deed of Conditional Sale. Donio was apprehended driving the stolen vehicle on the same day the victim's brother reported him missing. Sergeant Taberdo positively identified Donio as the driver he flagged down at a checkpoint. The Supreme Court found that all the elements of carnapping were present, and it was proven that the killing of the victim was perpetrated in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed Donio's conviction for carnapping with homicide.

On September 26, 2003, police officers were manning a checkpoint and issuing pass cards to vehicles going to the South. During this time, a speeding tricycle with Raul Layug as the driver approached the checkpoint. Suddenly, the engine of the tricycle stopped. The police officer in charge, who was given the driver's license by Raul Layug, later identified as Enrile Donio, testified that he can identify Donio in court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether all the elements of carnapping are present and proven in this case.

2. Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution are sufficient to convict the accused of the crime of carnapping with homicide.

3. Whether Donio and his companions are guilty of carnapping the tricycle.

4. Whether Donio and his companions are guilty of killing Raul in the course of the carnapping.

5. Whether the defense of alibi is sufficient to acquit the accused of the crime of carnapping with homicide.

6. Whether the accused was able to establish the physical impossibility of his presence at the scene of the crime.

RULING:

1. Yes, all the elements of carnapping are present and proven in this case. The accused was found in possession of the stolen tricycle, which was ascertained to belong to the victim. The accused impersonated the victim before the police officers and failed to produce the vehicle's papers at the checkpoint. These circumstances raise the presumption that the accused was responsible for the unlawful taking of the vehicle and the death of the victim.

2. Yes, the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution are sufficient to convict the accused of the crime of carnapping with homicide. While direct evidence is lacking, circumstantial, indirect, or presumptive evidence can replace direct evidence if it is sufficient and leads to a moral certainty of the accused's guilt. In this case, the combination of circumstances, including the accused's possession of the stolen tricycle, his impersonation of the victim, and his failure to produce the vehicle's papers at the checkpoint, establishes his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

3. The Court found that Donio and his companions are guilty of both carnapping the tricycle and killing Raul in the course thereof. The Court based its ruling on the following evidence and circumstances:

4. • Donio was apprehended and positively identified as the driver of the tricycle flagged down at the checkpoint.
5. • Raul's body was found with multiple stab wounds in a vacant lot towards the road to Sta. Lucia Resettlement corner Barangay Dapdap.
6. • Raul was last seen driving the tricycle at 10:00 in the evening on November 25, 2003, and his body was discovered at 6:30 in the morning the next day.
7. • Donio and his companions were hailed at the checkpoint at around 2:30 in the morning on November 26, 2003 aboard the missing tricycle.
8. • Donio fled when brought to the police station, indicating a guilty mind.

9. No, the defense of alibi is not sufficient to acquit the accused of the crime of carnapping with homicide. Alibi is the weakest of all defenses in criminal law because it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove. In order for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must establish that he was not at the location where the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to be there at the time of the crime. It must also be supported by credible corroboration from disinterested witnesses. In this case, the accused failed to present sufficient evidence and credible witnesses to support his alibi defense, therefore, it is fatal to him.

10. No, the accused was not able to establish the physical impossibility of his presence at the scene of the crime. Even though the accused claimed that he never left work during the whole year of 2003, he was unable to present convincing evidence to support his claim. Moreover, the prosecution was able to sufficiently and positively identify the accused as one of the perpetrators of the crime through circumstantial evidence. Thus, the uncorroborated alibi and denial of the accused must be brushed aside in favor of the positive testimony of the prosecution.

PRINCIPLES:

• "Unlawful taking" or apoderamiento is the taking of a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner, by means of violence, intimidation, or force. It is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the vehicle, even if there is no opportunity to dispose of it.

• The presumption that a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act. This presumption applies when the possession is unexplained or when the proffered explanation is rendered implausible in view of independent evidence inconsistent thereto.

• Intent to gain or animus lucrandi is presumed from the unlawful taking of a motor vehicle. Actual gain is irrelevant, as the important consideration is the intent to gain. The term "gain" includes deriving any benefit from the act performed, such as the mere use of the stolen vehicle.

• Circumstantial, indirect, or presumptive evidence can replace direct evidence if it is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. To justify a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the combination of circumstances must be interwoven in such a way as to leave no reasonable doubt as to the accused's guilt.

• The findings of the trial court regarding the credibility of witnesses are generally conclusive, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, absent any showing that the findings are unsupported or glaringly erroneous.

• Flight is a strong indication of guilt or a guilty mind.

• In absence of evidence to the contrary, the trial court and appellate court's findings of fact and credibility of witnesses are not erroneous.

• Alibi is the weakest of all defenses in criminal law.

• For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must establish that he was not present at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to be there. It must also be supported by credible corroboration from disinterested witnesses.

• Positive testimony prevails over negative testimony.

• In cases of special complex crimes where the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua, the amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages are pegged at P75,000.00 each.